1993 01 11CHANHASSEN ZONING BOARD OF
ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS
REGULAR MEETING
JANUARY 11, i993
Chairman Johnson called the meeting to order.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Carol Watson, Willard Johnson and Don Chmiel
STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss, Planning Director; Sharmin Ai-Jaff, Planner
Ii Steve Nelson, Building Inspector; and Elliott Knetsch, City Attorney
FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE AND ~ WETLAND SETBACK VARIANCE FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF,
RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED AT 6921 YUMA DRIVE, SHANNON TERRY.
Sharmin Al-Jarl presented the staff report.
Chmiel: What type of soils are there Steve? Do you want to come up to
the mic.
Nelson: Attached you'll find a copy of the Carver County Soils survey and
most of them are glencoe silty clays, soils. Organic, very wet. Poorly
drained soils. Marsh, which again is usually typical to lowlands. It may
be unsuitable but corrective measures can be taken sometimes by use of
pilings. Surcharging with clean fill. Brining back oversizing building
pads, that type of thing. It's possible that it may not be cost effective
but it's something that we'd like to'have at least a soils engineer take a
look at the soils. Would recommend that at the building excavation.
Johnson: Do you have any idea how deep it is?
Nelson: Not really. It's real difficult to say because you may have an
organic layer a couple of feet, 3 feet, maybe 4 feet and underneath that
you're going to have a very saturated gray clay which is also considered
soft. So a soils engineer would take a look at that and determine, maybe
sizing up the width of the footings, that type of thing. We have no idea
without an actual soils engineer going out and taking some borings.
Watson: One of my questions and I'm sure no one here can answer is how in
heavens name did this become a lot of record? I mean where was the
building pad when we allowed this subdivision? Where did they think they
were going to put the house?
Al-Jarl: I don't know.
Watson: Because even what's considered buildable back there is not dry..
I mean it's not like.
Al-Jarl: Our guess is whoever approved the subdivision didn't.
Krauss: You go back to the original platting of Carver Beach in what, the
1920's where you have the Star and Tribune giving away lots for selling
newspaper subscriptions and this was all platted then and frankly.
Watson: Yeah, but this was divided up.
Board of Adjustments and Appeals
January 11, 1993 - Page 2
Krauss: It was redivided I think in the early 70's, if I remember right.
Was it later than that?
Watson: '84. '84 we split it up and left this very large piece. I mean
I don't know if the assumption was made because it's a large piece, it was
buildable or what. But I'm a little puzzled as to how something like this
ever becomes buildable and I hope that it wouldn't happen now.
Krauss: Well I honestly don't know. I mean the City had no maps. We
only had topographic maps done in '89. So I'm not sure how they would
have known how they were going to do it. Yeah, it is an unfortunate
situation.
3ohnson: This is a considered a lot of record?
Krauss: It's a lot of record.
3ohnson: I was going to say, we've got a lot of outlots...
Watson: Has sewer and water been paid on this?
A1-3aff: It was assessed for it. I don't know if it's been paid or not.
Watson: So we don't know that any sewer and water charges have ever been
collected or paid?
A1-3aff: No, but that's something that they will pay at the time of.
Watson: Right, but nothing has been paid?
3ohnson: It's never been assessed.
Watson: Has not been assessed?
A1-3aff: I can check into it.
Watson: It's becoming increasingly difficult to get these lots of record
which are not buildable and come in here and then they want a variance to
put them into something buildable. That one on Pleasant View Road will be
the bain of my existence as long as I live in the city. I hate to see
that continue to happen. I don't know. I can't see building on this
piece of ground. There's nothing back there to build on. There's no land
to build on. And I don't know what the City's position on buying 'it would
be. I know we don't exactly have cash lying around to buy up wet pieces
of ground.
Chmiel: You're right.
Watson: But I can't honestly in good conscience say-that I would
recommend that they build anything on this lot. Because I don't think the
house is going to stay put. Or it's going to have water or there's going
to be problems with this structure one way or another. And it's all going
to come back to us. I mean someone someday down the line is going to say,
you gave me a permit. That must mean you thought that we could build
Board of Adjustments and Appeals
January 11, 1993 - Page 3
here. And I'd hate to have my name wearing that confusion. Saying that I
actually believed that somewhere along the line.
Krauss: Well, your reservations are I think well founded. We share the
same sentiments as does our inspections department. We've learned over
the years that virtually anything is fixable if you throw enough'money at
it. I'm not sure if that equation balances in this case or not but it's
clear that no permits will be issued until the soil work-up is done by a
soils engineer and is properly corrected. At which time that engineer has
some liability for what happens. I don't know what else we could do. I
mean we have an educated buyer. They're certainly aware of the situation.
Johnson: I had a concern and a neighbor over there called me just before
I left home and he says, do you realize what happens when we get a 3 inch
rain? ...walked it a couple years ago and it came up...and the year I
walked it there was water standing. And that wasn't after a big rain.
That was just on a normal...and I've got problems with that too. Saying
geez, that dumb board gave us a permit and the house is tipping over...
dumb board gave us a variance to build and I saw it here a number of years
ago. Somebody in Chanhassen...built a home on the end of a cul-de-sac and
the water was running through their garage and they blamed the city for
that. I don't feel that was the city's fault at that time and we didn't
grant no variance on it. I'm just giving a for instance. There was water
running through his garage and out the back and he blamed the city because
he had a house there.
Watson: The bottom line is always right here in this building.
Krauss: Well I don't deny that Carol. I'm one of the people that's get
those phone calls. I think the best we can do is try to let the buyer
beware and try to educate the buyer. Variances have to be filed against
the property. Is there a way of putting some concerns in the variance
that's filed?
Elliott Knetsch: Well you know both Carol and Willard, you're both making
points about is the city incurring some potential liability by issuing
these permits or variances and cities were faced with that problem.
Within the last couple of years the State Municipal Court Liability Act
was changed. Now there's a specific State law that says, you can't sue us
because we issued you a permit. All we're doing here is saying, yes you
can have a building permit. We're not saying it's a good place to build a
house. We're simply saying your plans and your specifications for your
house meet the building code. We're not saying that you won't have a wet
basement or you won't have water running through your garage' You as the
buyer and your engineer and your staff have to make those decisions for
you. This case is slightly different than that because it's not a
building permit. It's a variance but we're caught in a position where
it's a lot of record and you don't really have a choice, as I think staff
point out earlier. So the mere fact that we give them a variance I don't
believe opens us up to liability. I think we would be immune from a
lawsuit for something like that.
Watson: I'm concerned about more than a lawsuit though because I mean I
live within a mile of this place the entire 46 years of my life. I hate
Board of Adjustments and Appeals
January 11, 1993 - Page 4
to be embarrassed literally by the f-act that things 'are being done that
really shouldn't be done. And we're always stuck between a rock and a
hard place with these lots of record and we have to bend over backwards
repeatedly because something, we have to allow something to be done on a
lot where it shouldn't be allowed to be done. It shouldn't happen.
Elliott Knetsch: It's a question of funds you know. If we had a fund in'
existence and we were putting a little something in each year to acquire
properties where it makes sense, like maybe it does with this one, that'd
be one thing but unfortunately, we don't have that sort of a fund.
Watson: It's a luxury we're not in possession of right?
Elliott Knetsch: Right.
Chmiel: I get rather hesitant with some of these because right now we
have a suit that's initiated against the City in something not quite as
similar but close. And it's probably not from that existing property
owner coming in. It's the second removed property owner now coming in,
and I don't like to see that done only because of the fact that no one
really wins in that particular situation. But they do want to sue us. It
does cost the city money and I don't like spending that money. Because
the only ones that really come out of it, Elliott is you know who. The
attorneys. And normally it gives me a lot of real deep concern with it.
I know that we have a few other things here too with that variance. The
setback requirement for a 20 foot deck, as you mentioned.' Cutting that
back down to 10. We're also into the wetland with not the proper setback
requirements with that as well. I think that the buyer should be aware of
the fact that if the soils are going to need removal, it's a very costly
effort. We don't know what the depths are because it could be 2 feet, it
could be 3, could be 5, could be more. And this position of that problem
in itself plus the fact of bringing fill back in, cost really gets up
there. And still whether or not it would be a buildable and a viable
buildable lot, that's another question. $o I have some real concerns with
that. That part of it. Wetland, as I say, is going to be what, 30 feet
back as opposed to 75?
Al-Jarl: 31.
Chmiel: 31.
Watson: And in reality, it's right there.
Chmiel: Wetlands are something that we do protect within the city and
have done for a period of years. Only because it's the best thing to
really do.
Watson: And this one's really working. I mean this one's working for
Lotus Lake. It is truly filtering. The vegetation is natural. I mean
it's there actually doing the job that needs to'be done for a lake that's
already in danger. It's just a nice, natural.
Johnson: There is severe runoff from those big hills you know '
Board of Adjustments and AppeaIs
January 11, 1993 - Page 5
Watson: And it is really wet. Holds a lot of water.
3ohnson: My concern is too, it gets wet down there normal. You can't
tell now but in the summertime when I walked it, it was wet under normal.
We haven't had real wet summers for quite a few years now. We've had sure
some outbursts of rain but under severe conditions.
A1-Jaff: I've been out there when it...
Chmiel: I'm just wondering whether the, I'd like to get some input from
the applicant too. Some of the concerns maybe...
3ohnson: Do you wish to speak?
Dave Hamlin: Yeah. My name is Dave Hamlin.
Chmiel: Could you come up to the microphone so we can.
Dave Hamlin: Oh sure. My name is Dave Hamlin. I work with LDK
Builders. We're the builders who's going to be, hopefully building the
proposed structure on that particular lot. A couple questions that I have
for you guys. Number one, I'm a bit confused because at this point in the
process, and Shannon who's the actual applicant and correct me if I'm
wrong, we're not trying to ascertain whether or not the lot soil condition
is buildable and as is condition. This is a two part process. Number
one, we have a problem. We don't know if that soil is going to bear that'
structure. Number two, we have the problem of the edge of the wetland and
the setbacks creating a lot that is in essence unbuildable due to setback
requirements. We're not making any representations here tonight or trying
to figure out if the soils are good. You guys have jumped one step in the
process here it seems to me in asking the question.
Watson: We have to.
Dave Hamlin: Well I understand that. Here's our point. The first step
is to find out if the city will allow a variance that will allow those
lines to be drawn on that survey that would create a possibility of
building a home. Then the next question after that is, if it's possible
that the city will allow this structure to be built there, does it make
sense to build it there? The buyers aren't going to want to live on a lot
with their house sinking into the ground. We, as a builder, who
participate in the Minnesota Statutory Warranty Coverage and are insured
by the Home Buyers 210 Warranty Program, aren't going to want that
situation either. If we go out there and spend $600.00 and $1,200.00 to
do soil borings for our own information and find that that lot is a piece
of crap, then at that point we can make one of two decisions. Number one,
to walk away from it and that's a provision that's built into the purchase
agreement between the applicant and the current owner. The seller of the
lot. Or we can choose to, as you say, throw money at the situation and
try to correct it. I don't think we're going to be interested in pounding
down pilings out there. I can't see the applicant choosing that course of
action. I mean you're going to be running into tens of thousands of
dollars to correct that lot. Again, I guess I want to ask you, why is it
that you're jumping this one step in the process ahead of just simply
Board of Adjustments and Appeals
January li, 1993 - Page 6
saying, okay. We're looking at this and yes. We could set back this
proposed structure 10 feet from the one. 5 feet from the front and deal
with the wetlands issue and then require the building department to have
us evidence to them the fact that we can build this structure on the lot
and make sure that it doesn't disappear into the ground. I guess that's
what we're trying to establish here. The reason, you know You may be
askin9 in your own mind, why didn't you do.it the reverse way? Well I'll
tell you why. Because it'd be senseless to pound $1,200.00 worth of soil
surveys out to an engineer only to find out that the City won't grant the
variance. That's money flushed down the toilet and we chose this course
of action first. Another quick question before you.
Chmiel: Yeah, but that's a condition. That's one of the things that
I mentioned in the first place. Is I didn't feel the variance was
warranted to do this because all the rest of this hinges right back to it.
Dave Hamlin: To the soils?
Chmiel: That's correct. And my concerns were those specifics' We, right
now have another situation occurring whereas you as a builder have to
provide the owner the rights that th~. re's nothing wrong with what's
existing. We have another suit happening within the city right now
whereas the builder is not solvent any longer and is not able to take care
of the cost to do the rennovating and put it back to where it was in the
first place. $o I guess I have a few different concerns with that. And my
concern there again is, the city is being brought into that suit. We have
to defend ourselves and I don't like spending our money for those
specifics, and that's the first reason that I have. And that will be my
number one objective. To eliminate the problems that could be incurred
because of conditions or whatever might be on that particular site.
Dave Hamlin: Okay. Just to address that briefly. Number one, the
situation that you have with the builder that you're dealing with is the
result of the fact that that builder is not participating obviously in a
HOW or a 210 Warranty, is that correct? Well, there is a major
difference. If the builder's insured by a warranty program and the
builder goes insolvent 60 days after the closing, it doesn't matter~ The
structure warranty exists in place for a period of 10 years and even is
transferrable to a new buyer. I don't know if you're aware of that type
of thing that goes on. And we would be putting that type of warranty on
it, but I understand the concerns that you guys have about it. I guess
the only thing that we can say is that, we've tried to figure out how to
go through this process and this is where we chose to start the process.
Is to find out if we can get a variance dealing with these lines on paper
and not dealing with the dirt because we don't know the dirt until we
punch holes. And if the city wants to, .if you would feel more comfortable
setting specific requirements on us providing evidence that this soil is
really buildable, that's not going to be a problem for us because we want
to know it for ourselves as well. And if we get in there and find out
it's crap, we're not going to build on that lot, but.
Chmiel: I'm sure you've looked at that lot Dave.
Board of Adjustments and Appeals
January ii, 1993 - Page 7
Dave Hamlin: We have but I have to tell you honestly, we have done no
soil tests whatsoever. We've gone to the trouble of surveying it to
provide the data that you guys need. I am also a little confused by one
thing. We met with 3o Ann out of your department there at the city and
I'm sorry, I forget her last name. And it was explained to us somehow
that the setback requirement is not 75 feet but is in fact a total of 60,
and that's an average setback. And I guess I'm a little confused how it
went from 60 to 75.
Krauss: If I could. Jo Ann was referring to a new wetland ordinance that
we adopted a few months ago. If you're platting new lots today, there is
a decreased setback requirement on the new lots. In exchange for that
you've got to set aside a buffer strip around the wetland with native
vegetation. And that's got to be monumented and then we have setbacks for
structures beyond that and it comes out that you have a little more
·
flexibility with a decreased setback. But the ordinance also provides
that if you have a lot of record, a pre-existing-lot, which is most of the
city that's been platted to date, then the standard of 75 feet is still
enforced.
Dave Hamlin: Okay, that isn't quite how it was explained to us and that's
how we proceeded to come up with this proposal actually.
Krauss: No, that hasn't changed in this context.
Johnson: Dave, and I don't feel...jump the issue because once we grant
you the variance, the variance has been granted. Correct me if I'm wrong,
but we've got to look into all the aspects like the Mayor mentioned. If
we're granting you this variance, there's all the things associated to go
ahead with it.
Watson: We're saying it is if we grant the variance.
Johnson: That's right.
Watson: We're saying it's okay.
Dave Hamlin: To build that house on that lot?
Watson: That's right. And so when we .say that, that's kind of unnerving
when we feel the house may sink into the, we can't be assured of the soils
or that those, I mean.
Dave Hamlin: Don't we have to, as part of the application process for the
building permit, if it's not an engineered building pad, we have to give
evidence of what's under there per a soil engineer test. I mean that's
part of the, I mean the building permit can be denied based on what the
bearing capacity of the soil is.
Nelson: Right. We won't necessarily deny the permit itself... (In
speaking from the audience, his comments were not picked up on the tape.)
Watson: There's two of them, two houses just over in Shorewood from me
that they installed...and they're working on one now, and they were both
Board of Adjustments and Appeals
January 11, 1993 - Page B
put in the lake as far as I'm concerned and one I saw the basement fall
in. 18 courses of block and I just feel that...I can't give my approval
on something that I feel personally...I just don't feel comfortable wlth
that.
Steve Nelson made a comment from the audience.
3ohnson: Shannon, did you want?
Shannon Terry: Well I'm not sure exactly what I'm going to add to what
Dave has said basically but I feel I have the same concerns that Dave has.
also. We don't intend on investing all of our money into a home that's
going to fall into the ground either. And this will be our second home.
We live right now in Hopkins. We just sold. We're going to be moving
pretty soon with the hopes of building somewhere in Chanhassen. We like
this area. This land became available. It came up on our realtor's list.
We came and looked at the lot. Again, we really began looking at the lot
in the fall. The leaves were on the ground. Again, there were no soil
samples done at that time whatsoever so we're really, again what we did is
we basically came to the city and asked what process do we have to go
through to where we can obtain this land and get building on this land.
And it was told that we needed to go through the variance process first.
Upon that, coming to a success, then you go to the soil samples. So I'm
not sure what more I can add but I guess it's just that, first of all I'm
unaware of, obviously because I don't live in this area, of the condition
of the land first of all. And secondly, I guess we need to find out first
of all if we meet the requirements of the city first of all for setbacks
and positioning of the house first of all. We've done basically almost
everything we can to the home to make sure it meets those requirements.
We've reversed the plan. It was going to be a full walkout. Due to the
slope of the lot from front to rear elevation, it is a split level home.
But it's going to be built basically into the ground. It's going to be,
as far as I know, the whole bottom of the exterior of the home in the rear
is going to be exposed. I believe we're just going to be just pushing up
fill to accommodate the front portion of the home. So I don't believe
it's going to be building very deeply into the soil. We had some
information supplied by a survey that basically said that the elevation of
the wetland was at a level of 929 feet. And determined the area of the
wetland and maintaining the 2 feet above that level of the wetland, we
would meet that basically with the digging of the small foundation we need
to supply for the home. So I guess so far as we're concerned, it seems
like we're meeting everything that we can so far. Obviously we have a
problem with the size of the home for the wetland area itself. Looking at
some of the other homes, one of the drawings that 3o Ann had given to us
before, when we came in to meet with her for the variance request, another
home that was proposed to be built on the lot was quite large. It was a
very large L shaped and would obviously not fit. At that time we were
told basically a future house is a little more in line with the size of
property. Things may go a little more smoothly but again, we weren't
aware of the wetland level of the property at that time, but.
3anis Schultac: I'm Janis Schultac and I'm representing Joe Martin who's
out of town, who's the owner of 6911 Yuma who would be on that property's
left. And when he bought the property, and I have lived there right now
Board of Adjustments and
January 11, 1993 - Page
for over a year so I can tell you some things about standing water and
flooding. Not on our property but where Woodhill and Yuma meet, there's
always standing water there when it rains. And sometimes it gets to the
point that if we didn't have our Forerunner, it gets very difficult to get
through that water and we have stalled. Also, where that property, where
the pavement...to that wetland area and we're afraid that if there was to
be some buildings there, our property there built that, it-would cause
additional flooding in that area because where would the water go? It
would probably go into that property. We do have the, there's a pond out
back of the property and I think it's on, would be on that land. I'm not
sure and that does get pretty filled and is constantly wet. Even when it
was pretty dry this summer, it was always water in there. I'm pretty
sure, I can't quite for sure but he did look at purchasing that land in
hopes that nobody would build and that if it was buildable,' later on he
could sell the house and then sell the land right next to it. He did have
it tested. I'm pretty sure he told me he had it tested. This is based on
our phone coversation last night from San Diego. And that it would cost a
lot of money to do pilings or something. I'm not real knowledgeable on
all this terminology. And that it wasn't worth him purchasing it or else
he would have bought it 3 years ago. Currently his house is totally paid
for so he does have the funds to buy it outright. This spring we did
discuss buying it. We looked into it again and it just wasn't worth
buying because it was unbuildable. Because his builder did tell him at
that time or they did do testing that it was not, but don't quote me.
It's not for sure because he's not here to tell you. He's in an airplane
right now on his way home. When he did buy the property, he was told that
to the right and to the left of him, no one could build because the
property wasn't buildable due to city ordinances and he was pretty
surprised when they put a house next door to us onto the right because he
did not have the chance to come and give his little speech. And they were
granted a variance and they did build and their house is on 8,000 square
feet right now but they're not affected by wetland or anything. But it
did upset him because that was the reason why he bought the land to begin
with. He feels that the City of Chanhassen has variances for a reason.
Wants to know why they have the variances. What are the reasons and why
are they so willing to change them and let people build when they're not
meeting the city ordinances. My notes are real quick on the back of a
paper here. Let's see, what else did he have to say. I think that was
really about all. He does have more information. He was saying it so
fast and it was way over my head so, but he just kind of wanted to give
his two cents. So thanks.
Watson: The lot next door is another one of those lots of record? That
variance on the other house that he's talking about was another lot of
record...remember doing it. Now what?
3ohnson: I'd like to see a motion for denial. It's your choice.
Watson: I make a motion to deny the variance for 6921 Yuma Drive, Lots
29-18 thru 29-43, also Lots 28-77 thru 28-97.
3ohnson: I'll second that.
Board ot= Adjustments and Appeals
January 11, 1993 - Page 10
Watson: At this point time I'll just say, at this point in time that lot
is not buildable piece of property.
Chmiel: That's true.
Watson: In it's present condition, ,it would not be buildable.
Chmiel: Could we put an addendum to that? An addition that it should
probably be reviewed by City Council too with potentially acquiring this
property to use it as a drainage area. Therefore eliminate.
Watson: Let's deny the variance and then let's make another motion that
the City Council look into, can we do it that way? So that we don't mix
up the City's purchasing the property with the variance.
Chmiel: I don't know if we can have two motions on the, counseIer?
Elliott Knetsch: Well, I think you can do it with two motions. Yeah, you
can do the first motion. If you're signaling out the variance with the
reason for it and then secondly, you can.
Johnson: Make a motion that the Council review it.
Elliott Knetsch: Right.
Chmiel: Okay.
Krauss: Normal practice for us, if something is going to be denied is to
ask you to continue it to get a findings of fact to support your denial.
For the record. Might that be adviseable in this case? In the meantime
we can refer this up to the City Council?
Chmiel: I would suggest that we table it then.
Watson: Yeah. It shouldn't come to the Council as though we didn't do
it.
Elliott Knetsch: What you ought to do then is to direct staff to prepare
findings consistent with denial and then you can review those. Are you
going to meet before the next Council meeting then? Well, we're supposed
to act on the application within 15 days of the hearing. I think.
Krauss: Our next Council meeting is on the 25th. Is this working days,
well actually either way.
Chmiel: You'd still have the proper amount of days until the next Council
meeting.
Watson: It would normally be working days wouldn't it Paul?
Krauss: It's 10 working days until the next City Council meeting.
Watson: Wouldn't it usually be working days?
Board o¢ Adjustments and Appeals
January 11, 1993 - Page ll
Chmiel: Most of them are. Refer to those.
Krauss: It's 14 days if you count them all.
Watson: So we're okay, either.
3ohnson: I'll call for the question.
Watson moved, 3ohnson seconded to deny the Front Yard Setback Variance and
Wetland Setback Variance for 6921 Yuma Drive and directing staff to
prepare a Findings of Fact to be brought back on January 25, 1993. Ail
voted in favor and the motion carried.
Watson: Now, if we want to direct City Council to look at it, that can be
a separate motion.
Chmiel: I don't know what we have for dollars, number one.
Watson: Well let's finish this in 14 days. We can at that point, when we
see it, direct Council if that's what we desire to do at that point. We
don't have to do that tonight.
Krauss: Well, you may want to. You may want to pass this on up.
Chmiel: There's an opportunity, the point was made and I think you
indicated that possibly the owner of that home now may be looking at
acquiring that property. Have it all as part of one parcel.
3anis Schultac: Well we looked at it but it was unbuildable. That's why
we never bought it.
Chmiel: Okay. But there's no intent.
3anis Schultac: There was at one time.
Chmiel: Because of the buildability on it but there's no, so you're not
interested in it? Sometimes you might want that extra land just because
you want extra land.
Watson: Well I think this would be a wonderful thing to watch. I mean
I bet there's wildlife and stuff around there.
3anis Schultac: There's 4 deer...that live around here.
Watson: Oh yeah. The deer herd in this area is huge. I'm sure the
wildlife is wonderful to watch.
3ohnson: Sometimes it's nice to have a buffer zone between you and the
neighbors.
Dave Hamlin: You're talking about a piece of land that's owned by
somebody that's been sold to somebody else. You're not talking about a
land that's sitting out there waiting for something to be done with it.
The Terry's have a rider interest, a legal rider interest created in this
Board of Adjustments and Appeals
January 11, 1993 - Page 12
land by a purchase agreement. I guess I'm kind of mystified why you're
talking about other people buying it. This is the Terry's land.
Chmiel: I was talking about the city acquisencing that. Just to take it
off the books so something doesn't ever happen on that piece of property.
Dave Hamlin: Who's going to pay the $9,000.00 in special assessments that
are...
Watson: That's the city's, it be owed the city anyway so the city
wouldn't have to owe the city the'$9,000.O0. Isn't that part of what
occurs when the city purchases land?
Chmiel: I think from a.
Dave Hamlin: I guess why is the city choosing to take action now, now
that there's a viable buyer who's talking about moving into your
community. It seems suddenly this issue, this land has become valuable
simply because somebody else is interested in it.
Chmiel: That's not the point. That's an assumption under your part.
Johnson: I don't think the city feels it's any value. It's a-n eyesore.
Watson: It's unbuildable.
comment was made from the audience that was not picked up on the tape.
Krauss: It wouldn't be done today. It was done many years ago and it
created a situation that we would have preferred not exist. The fact that
it does exist, I don't know what else I can say about that. If you knew
what we know today, we would not have allowed that lot to be platted.
Watson: Our information gets better all the time.
Krauss: Possibly too, in the interest of expediting it, we should have
Findings of Fact for the next meeting and be prepared to take the appeal
and the possibility of purchase to the City Council also at that same
evening.
Chmiel: Yes.
Watson: $o you want the motion to have the City Council look into the
purchase of the property? You want that now so that it can be ready?
Krauss: I think it would be appropriate because to...this thing over 3
meetings really isn't.
Watson: Okay, well I'll make a motion that.
Chmiel: It's not that we don't' want you moving into our community. That's
not the point. We have some concerns with what's there.
Board of Ad3ustments and Appeals
January 11, 1993 - Page 13
Shannon Terry: I have just a couple concerns. First of all, I'm a little
concerned that, first of all...is our realtor by the way. First of all,
like she said, the property's listed...and then finding Out that it's not
even buildable whatsoever. Secondly, going as far as we have...that's a
lot of time and money invested and we've got this far and... It's just
really frustrating. It's gone this far. It shouldn't have gotten...
Chmiel: That's the other thing that we're looking at. Potentially
removing it out of that. And no longer having it as a buildable lot.
Strictly as a drainageway.
Watson: I made a motion that we direct the Council to look into the
possible purchase of this property for use as a drainageway.
3ohnson: I'll throw a second on that.
Watson moved, 3ohnson seconded to direct the City Council to look into the
possible purchase of the property located at 6921 Yuma Drive for use as a
drainageway. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Watson moved, 3ohnson seconded to approve the Minutes of the Board of
Adjustments and Appeals meeting dated September 14, 1992 as presented.
All voted in favor except Don Chmiel who abstained and the motion carried.
Watson moved, 3ohnson seconded to adjourn the meeting. Ail voted in favor
and the motion carried.
Submitted by Paul Krauss
Planning Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim